Sunday, April 30, 2006

Chavez / Garcia.

Newspaper information to the reach of any citizen that have Internet access (Section: previous editions), or to any newspaper library will verify that was Alan Garcia, who initially branded the term “embarrassing man” to Hugo Chávez, coaxed by 3 reasons: a) the supposed logistic support of Chávez to Humala (”is his investor” ”is his godfather”) b) critics of Chávez to Toledo, by subscribing the letter of intention of the TLC, with USA (“why not he withdraws his petroleum of USA?”) and c) the hate of Chávez to C. Andrés Pérez, former-president of Venezuela and great friend of Garcia. As it was expected –given the antecedents- Garcia received immediately a verbal retort (“thief of the corner”, “corrupt”), on the part of Chávez, the ones that at last carried out to the emission of a note of protest of the Peruvian Chancellery and yesterday to the retreat of the Peruvian ambassador of Venezuela. But ?justify these verbal collisions (including someone that not yet is a president of Peru), to the paralysis of our relations with a brother country, rich in natural resources? ¿ will be so bad the accusations to the flagrant point to cause severe injuries in our country? ¿or will be alone single words a product of our temperament, to the one that as any badly human evil, is better not to respond? If we respond fire with fire we will finish setting on fire to all the meadow.

Since our point of view the verbal skirmishes are alone that, should to be expected that so quick they be initiated, they go diluting for if same. More, we sense that in the next years the verbal skirmishes among heads of state will continue being increased for a simple reason: what be done in Bolivia, Argentina or any South American country, each time will affect us. In the meantime, the process of shrinking of the world continues, quick we will be able to see and to listen what speak people in the another side of China and, if it affects us we will not have but remedy that to speak. If Chile, purchase guns excessively, I should speak because is my neighbor and because already something bad passed between us in the past. If we do not want to listen gross answers, do neither we carry out questionings in the same tone. In certain circumstances, is not good, to be remained quiet, is better to speak, s we go knowing and integrating us to Latin-American level. The factual measures obviously will be taken by the governments, there we do not have anything to do. If we always had to do things to the Peruvian way, then Bush should also have withdrawn hiss ambassador of Venezuela, when does little Chávez told him, in English and Spanish: donkey. Bush, the head of state of the more powerful country of the world, will step down to the infinite if he adopted a so childish measure. These events simply are left to pass. There are more important things (welfare of towns of USA and Venezuela, cheap petroleum that arrives at USA), that words that is carried them the wind. Fox, passed for the same thing with Chávez, was bothered a while, but did not come the childish commit to withdraw hi ambassador of Venezuela.

I can tell that your writing sticks more to the peruvian way of speech, although your words are well picked; they lack smoothness. Nice to have the articles in two languages. You can improve your writing and make it clearer with more practice and dropping the translator.Zarita